We seem to be encouraged to believe that the government slowness, aka "Red Tape", is a terrible inconvenience. But I'm learning that the slowness -- I don't love it, either! -- is actually a symptom of something quite important: distributing power.  In a business, roles and rules can be instantly changed via the owner or CEO or Board. And how many of us have had bosses or higher ups root through our projects like a bull in a china shop? (All of us, right?) 

In government, the equivalent would be elected officials. In our American form of government, including City of North Bend, we don't want the elected officials to have power like that. We elect leaders, not kings or queens, lords or ladies, CEOs, owners, or bosses.

So how do you get your voice heard?

If you or your community members have an issue,  submit your concern via website or call city at  541-756-8500. 

Don't have your favorite council person to do your work, because it could have unintended negative affects. When we push our issues to our council members, those council members have to recuse themselves for adjudication before the council. When we raise the issue through the system properly, that doesn't have to happen.

Why the limits and weird rules? Here are some of those rules that distribute power, as I understand them:

1. Council cannot interfere with city staffers work. In particular, just because I'm a skilled IT tech, I am not allowed to "offer" or force my opinions on IT staff. Doing the work of the city is not my job as a councilor.  In the private sector, having upper level bosses stay out of lower level managers teams is just a smart move, but for the city, it's required. 

2. Council questions outside meetings are funneled through the city administrator, period.  That's because elected officials must always  duly notify when they will deliberate on decisions before they deliberate: no secret meeting times or secret meetings. Some meetings are closed, called Executive Sessions, but media members are invited to attend as a witnessing and act to hold elected officials accountable.

3. Council members are prohibited from deliberating on city matters outside designated meetings (executive session or regular council meetings). There are fancy rules that apply to this regarding if a quorum (majority) of council are involved in conversations written or otherwise, but the spirit is that council members must deliberate according to the public schedule only. 

4. Some unusual protocols are in place to keep council members from illegally deliberating, as well as an obligation of city to notify other council members when communications are received from a councilor acting alone. 

   • Councilor emails sent to the City Administrator are shared with all council members through a blind CC because judges have ruled that a  "serial meeting" --  like a series of emails -- count as a deliberation and therefore are illegal because the public has not been duly notified.

   • Councilor communications can go unanswered until a scheduled metting.

5. Council writing or posting (facebook, blogs, letters to the editor, etc.) is public record and must be maintained by the council member if they fall outside the city's record keeping system (like the city web site). 

6. Councillors choosing to write outside the city records, like me, are advised the following:

   • Include a disclaimer upfront: these comments are my own. (They do not represent the city or the council in any way, shape or form.)

   • When listening to citizen concerns, point them to formally submitting their complaint via web site or calling city at  541-756-8500.

   • Any disparagement of anyone on any matter  is against council rules and code of ethics which can get me fines and more....

7. No elected official can block any citizen comments if they allow comments on their online platforms. Lots of case law on this, blocking is considered a violation of free speech, so it's easiest to not allow any comments at all if you want to control trolls.

8. Council members cannot volunteer for any city work or make most donations. Unelected citizens can. Imagine if you were a city staffer working with volunteers and an extra loud, lazy council person chose to "volunteer" for your project. Ugh!

9. Council members appoint a number of staffers to run a variety of arms of the city government. This is a very effective way to distribute power. We don't always like who runs things, but the appointment process keeps elected officials from being kings and queens. (We like that!)

What follows is the text of a letter I wrote to the contact point for the Comedy Central "news" show, Last Week Tonight, when I started noticing that their reporting really oversimplified issues that are rooted in how rural areas have a double down on difficulty in accessing their fair share of pooled resources from the state and federal governments. We view that divide in terms of politics, sadly, because the truth is that we don't use our own tools to ameliorate the issue and it could be that easy and no party in power so far has ever thought to change up the model. The "tyranny of the majority" speaks to how all of our shared pools of tax money is funneled to only the most populated areas by default. Everyone else must go through a high maintenance grant race. The every one else here are rural counties and cities, rural organizations. That rural-ness means we don't have the bandwidth for hiring grant writers, much less having staff able to do that work and manage the grant, should a grant be awarded. That's serious tyranny. Unintentional, but tyranny none the less.

"I'm hoping to convince Last Week Tonight researchers into spending more time understanding rural areas.  

Case in point, highlighting what appears to be idiotic ideas from city councils and their police forces requesting part of the opioid crisis settlement monies was, dare I say it, a Tucker Carlson of an oversimplification. 

And I *love* Last Week Tonight. Also, I **hate** Tucker Carlson for a variety of reasons I'm sure your team shares with me.

At first glance, yes, the decisions you highlighted on opioid spending seem stupid...until you consider rural area limitations that simply aren't the case in urban areas. 

For example, rural and small city police forces are frequently the first and only responders to drug crises.  Rural cities don't have sobering centers or in-patient or out-patient treatment centers or addiction councilors or shelters or a whole host of resources that may be underfunded but at least **exist** in urban areas. 

As a card carrying Libtard, I, too, voted for Measure 110 in Oregon which decriminalized small amounts of all drugs. I didn't realize how powerful that tool was for rural city police forces until after it hit our town hard. That tool wasn't just about drugs. That tool was frequently the way for police to identify the criminals who were pulling young people into not only drug use but prostitution, gangs and criminal activity.

I didn't think about how Oregon would become a Drug Tourism Center that quickly overwhelmed our humanitarian systems with people who partied too hard for too long.

Imagine if that great mapping software that's used to gerry manger the fuck out of voting districts were employed as a transparency reporting requirement of state or federal government agencies for any government money spent.

Then, seeing the issue would be immediate. Only the most populated areas get funding automatically.  If rural areas are ever offered an opportunity for funding, it's through grants which take a fuck-ton of effort. 

And who exactly in money-starved little towns (because they don't get their share of state or federal shared resources!) is prepared to write and manage grants? You guessed it, *not* rural areas who are already starved of funding.

I wondered why so many people vote(d) for Trump until I moved out to a rural area.

Now, I see a direct correlation between areas that voted for Trump overwhelmingly and that map of government spending that shows abso-fucking-lutely *zero* for those same areas. Our funding models look more like Greek city states demanding tribute from the farmers for literally no benefit to the farmers whatsoever.

We're starving fingers and toes of the American Body for the organs.

Please consider digging a little deeper! 

Since moving to my small town, I have learned so much about the hard truth of why the country is so divided. And even as a card-carrying Libtard, I understand why now.

If you need to take it this far, think of rural areas and small cities as the "people of color" in the City version of the race game. Really.

Jenny Jones

North Bend, OR"

This is an excerpt from an agenda item I put forth at the December 18, 2023 Council Work Session. It was prompted by a number of questions directly from residents, social media posts, as well as continued disruptive conduct by a single council person which fueled a large community uproar filled with lies and exaggerations.

"My statement today concerns how our city government works in relation to concerns and questions fellow community members have brought to my table. I do not speak for council, nor am I the final judge on these matters. However, I can express my impressions publicly and record them into our public record at this time.

Since being sworn in to council in December 2022, I’ve engaged in a number of conversations with my fellow residents around troubling impressions they'd gotten from social media or other outlets concerning city operations, in particular some actions of the city administrator. Upon closer examination personally, I've found that these concerns have stemmed primarily from misunderstandings about how city government actually works.

So, before I walk through what I've learned about the process, I want to unequivocally state that my personal experience, research and inquiry into concerns I’ve encountered so far have consistently revealed to me that *all* city staffers, including the city administrator, have acted within normal, legal operation relating to those concerns. Have I agreed with all decisions? No. My simple disagreement doesn't imply that something nefarious has taken place. Indeed, despite my disagreement at times, I have found no fault on what I've reviewed.

In arriving at this same conclusion over and over, I’ve relied on public resources available to any one of us with access to the library, a smart phone or a computer. Anyone hearing this can “trust and verify” for themselves:

1. The city’s complete charter is available on the city website. Alongside a library of instructive documents, there are links to the city's YouTube channel -- “North Bend City - Oregon” -- which has all public meetings recorded in accordance with Oregon law, and available for

anyone to view.

2. A highlight on this matter is a 3-hour video of North Bend's in-council training concerning the relationship between the elected council and the appointed city administrator. The training, completed in 2021, was conducted by the League of Oregon Cities lead counsel. While the training was before my time, I can confirm that what I’ve learned on this topic aligns closely with all critical details in this video. If you Google or use North Bend City’s site search using “north bend city council training 10 habits”, this video is the first hit you get.

The most common misconception I've encountered is how the city and the council share power, in particular, just how extensive the city administrator’s authority actually is, which is granted by city charter, council ordinances and employment contracts. This delegation of authority to a city administrator or manager is one of the most prevalent forms of local government in the United States. And there is nothing unusual about North Bend's particular charter, ordinances or contracts concerning this.

The reality is that the City Administrator holds significant control on all aspects of running the city. Similar to how a corporate board and company president operate, the council role doesn't include control of operations directly. That's the work of the city administrator. The need for this delegation of control is a part of something unspoken that I believe most of us agree on: small government. We don’t want to pay our politicians. That’s why so many cities model decisions and operations this way.

Yet, running a city is complicated: takes dedicated staff, more time than we can imagine, and so we delegate authority to the city staff over matters, large and small. As a side note, in many ways, the job of "running the city" is bigger and more complicated than any corporation because the government is held to higher and more complex standards than any private entity.

What I’ve observed is that frustration about particular outcomes leads some to convince themselves that unethical or unlawful activities have occurred, when in fact the activities are within legal bounds. And Oregon’s public meeting laws prioritize protecting the speech of citizen commenters. Council is *not* a court of law where sides present their cases. The law requires council to listen without judgement or interaction, full stop.

That means when you hear something emotionally charged at a council meeting or otherwise, you are hearing one party's perspective, often omitting crucial details in the urge to be heard.

Commonly, all relevant details are not articulated at that moment, in that meeting, or even at a later time. Unfortunately, that means that accusations leveled against the city council or staff go unchallenged, particularly in social media.

In light of that, I'd like to repeat my earlier statement: My personal witness, as well as investigation into events I was not present for, consistently revealed to me that all city staff,

including City Manager Milliron, have conducted themselves within the bounds of normal, legal operations.

Those events include, among many others since Mr. Milliron was appointed in 2020: 

• Urban Renewal Agency activities including those relating to the Ciccarelli property and current lease holders; 

• URA tiny homes discussions; 

• Former Mayor Briggs early and eventually incorrect assessment of events, as well as consequences, involving the airport, TSA and paying a fair share of North Bend police costs for contracted services; pool refurbishment, operations and funding;

• Pittam Loop understory removal in park area with common fire outbreaks and illegal camping; 

• Disc golf placed in Simpson's Park;

• City public meeting notices and records; 

• Events leading to our former police chief's voluntary resignation; and Facebook updates on the city page.

I hope this information helps and encourages others to observe and verify the facts directly.

We are all in this together. Respectfully Submitted,

Jenny Jones"

In the May, 2020 voting for North Bend, two petitions that altered the way the city can pay its costs got on our ballot. It's worth noting the various ways this puts the city's future at risk, even as all of life gets more *unaffordable* for everyone. Here's my take on the two measures:

• Measure 6-176 :  Barring the voters passing a petition for new fees or higher fee increases, this measure limits all city fee increases to whatever Social Security's annual cost of living increase is and removes city's ability to levy any new fees.

• Measure 6-177: Reduced a $30/month Public Safety fee on all city water bills to $15 with no language for increasing that under any circumstances.

Upside: the passing of these measures sure makes it seem like living will be more affordable for those of us who are retired and living on fixed incomes. When we get our Social Security Cost of Living adjustments, we'll be able to meet increase in our portion of city fees via our property taxes and utility bills.

Downside: Especially in recent years, the cost of our supplies -- building materials, supplies to keep our water clean, repair our sewers, water systems, and roads -- are increasing at orders of magnitude above that Social Security increase. And it makes sense. Us, average people, aren't purchasing materials needed to repair roads or sewers or technology for public safety departments. We're buying food and socks and paying for doctor visits -- costs that are the means by which the Social Security Administration determines the annual increase,

But for the city, that means that when the asphalt we planned to purchase for our already meager road maintenance budget goes up 30% even one year, much less multiple years in a row, we must reduce the road repairs we planned on doing by about that much or more. It means that reducing staff and/or staff hours is the only way the city can accommodate surprise repairs.

Dirty Little Secret About Property Taxes: The only way any municipality handles increased costs year-over-year, decade after decade, is by new development or property that turns over. When we buy a property, we lock in the rate via the assessed value of the property. When someone buys that same property a year or a decade later, their assessed value is higher than when we bought. Yes, it's definitely a pyramid scheme we benefit from. And it also fails to keep pace with the cost our city incurs for the services we very much want.

If we cannot accommodate new development or properties turning over, we get a bedroom community looking at a life span that shortens as inflation rises. Couple that with a city's inability to levy new fees or increase fees beyond Social Security increase, our life span shortens *faster*.

How did these measures come about?  Former Mayor John Briggs spear-headed the entire process: Petition for 6-176 and Petition for 6-177. As a retiree himself, I can imagine it made a lot of sense to protect himself and others on fixed incomes.  He wasn't thinking of how Social Security recipients don't actually ever buy municipal supplies like pool chlorine or sewer pumps or asphalt in quantities larger than a home owner would purchase.

Yes, for the curious, this is the same person who ran for North Bend Mayor in 2022. He ran on understanding how government spending works. 

Personally, I would advocate for splitting out the parts of the city budget that easily follow what the Social Security increases use vs. those expenses like city supplies that fall way outside the intention of that increase.

The budget money perception is a huge disconnect, even when you know how things work. It's just unfathomable amounts. Example: North Bend's $40 million budget is just huge when I think about it. I mean, I deal with money in $10s and $20s and my $200 power bill, so $40 million seems huge. But, when you compare that to, say, Walmart's or Safeway's or Fred Meyer's likely $50 million in sales annually, or the budget of the college at $30 or hospital at, what, $225 million, you start to understand what a shoestring North Bend's budget actually is. All those entities rely on Coos Bay and North Bend to have working sewer, water, public safety, electricity, and local people to buy their goods and services, much less work for them because no one can import a full workforce -- a few, maybe, but not everyone. Couple this with all the legal tethers that the government money piles have, and you've got a system very unlike any family or business any of us have ever dealt with.

Since December, 2022, when I was sworn in as a council member, I have learned **a ton** about civil rights and an American city's ability to control public behavior within its borders (not much, actually). This learning has all come from the councils need to employ/enforce/roll out (not sure of the legal word here) a few ordinances before July 1, 2023, the beginning of the municipal fiscal year. These understandings presume just a bit of familiarity with the "Creating Solutions" post above.  Here's my understanding from a bird's eye view:

• No ordinance is far worse for the city than an ordinance with established locations because no ordinance means that anyone at all can sleep or rest on any bit of public property at any time. That means: during business hours or school, on any sidewalk, meridian or park and RVs on any city street at any time.

• Both Camping and Parking Ordinances include a time-limited period during each day, **not** 24/7 camping or parking.

• Homeless people are not granted the right to commit crimes. If someone is hurting you *regardless* of who that person is, call 911!

• We have a choices of using the annex on downtown space as a short-term solution for homeless shelter or continuing on our path for a long-term solution to affording housing crisis through seeking a developer for that property.  When I see it that way, I say, no shelter. We need to keep on that path for a multi-story, multi-purpose building downtown that includes 1-3 bedroom apartments for people who actually live here who can pay their way in life. In fact, our "choice" for using the Annex area would be to use city funds to buy it back from the Urban Renewal Agency. URA funds are highly regulated and limited to purchasing blighted real estate, currently standing vacant for any number of reasons. To use it for any other purpose that to build violates URA laws. 

• Affordable Housing doesn't just mean free or subsidized housing for those in need. Affordable House includes housing that someone working can use to work in our area. Like the rest of the nation, our housing crisis means that people who get well paying jobs at, say, the hospital or the BLM or the college are having to quit and leave because they cannot find a place to live.

• When our community looked at some suggestions for locations for camping, every single site was heavily rejected by the public.

• When our community was asked to choose spots they would accept camping, every single site was either private property or was a site that was not inhabitable for reasons like being underwater.

• When we actually look at North Bend's public property -- which is what we have to work with for the ordinances -- we are almost 100% limited to: sideways, city streets, parks and meridians.

• When our community asked about where, the majority fell into no parks, no residential areas. Another difficult tyranny of the majority situation that caused us to place the burden on our downtown commercial areas, arguably the worst place we want "visible" issues like this. But we had to choose something.

• Police cannot arrest someone for criminal trespass on private property where the owner has given written permission. So, police can't actually move a person who's resting in the alcove of a downtown restaurant unless the restaurant signed up for North Bend Property Watch.

• Because more and more people are moving into their vehicles, court rulings also impact Parking Ordinances. What all of us want, IMO, is for residents to have a different parking policy than people living in their vehicles or other non-residents. For the moment, the courts rulings imply the same for all. The situation is further exacerbated with our "by complaint" enforcement -- which is our only course when such a small police force. My understanding is that because the policy is "by complaint", the officers can't go to an address where they've gotten a complaint and ticket anyone else they deems as violating that same policy. 

In play, as of this writing, are several efforts to request advice from the courts, as well as crafting new state legislation, for how to actually implement common sense policy in areas like parking in the face of the court rulings around basic civil rights of homeless people. 

So, two years ago when I was also opposed to the community center as a place for a time-limited sleeping/resting camping ordinance, I was unaware of all these dimensions of complexity. Now when I read this list, the community center seems like one of our better choices...At least better when we don't use it for events. But perhaps we can find a few places, a few streets and rotate or something.  We'll see what happens....

During the first February meeting of 2023, I "got in trouble". In attempting to understand something another councilor wanted to do, I directly addressed the councilor when our city administrator said something like, "I'm sorry. I have to call out of order.  Your council rules state that councilors must address the Mayor."

Out of sheer fear I uncontrollably shouted, "I'm sorry!"  I felt a little bit better a second later when I heard, "we're all learning here". Phew!  

This seems like a kind of crazy rule on the surface, doesn't it? I certainly thought so. But as we continued our discussion peppered with more tutelage on how council works, it was clear to me that this particular rule was yet another clever way to keep the meeting running and distribute power. And also, these rules came into play only after council meetings when awry in some form. I'm going to guess that in this case, several council members hijacked a meeting with no positive results after, say, a shouting match ensued between members. 

Fascinating!

Despite being a current city councilor, our best shot was report the rat to the city the same way everybody else does.

In this case, during a wonderful Saturday night at home, we heard a scurry and a scuttle and witnessed a 2-3 lb rat dive into our toilet and swim down, not to be seen again that night or the following day...or since, so far. This is a real thing, you might wonder? Yes, it's a real thing. If you really want to American-privilege-traumatize yourself, look it up on YouTube. While it's not particularly common, rats head indoors during heavy rains, like our rainy season here in our coastal rain forest. And this one made it's way into our home via the sewer pipes. 

After some heavy consultations, deliberations and coin flipping, we placed to calls for help: 1) to our pest control guy -- we left a weekend message; 2) the Report Concern page on North Bend's website. Turns out, this had happened 10 or so years ago for our friend, a former owner of the house we occupy. She resolved it after calling the city. They fixed a cracked pipe.

So, that's what I did for my household.  I left the city a message on a Saturday night at about 11pm. The city called my partner, our home owner,  back via our community service officer from the police department on Monday morning at 8:30.  Quick response! They are setting a plan in motion because of our report, including setting some traps and maybe a scope we don't have to be home for. Nice!

Over the weekend, we discovered that animals all over the world make their way into people's toilets, just like us, whether in a city or alone in the desert or African Congo. And people have developed a variety of traps a plumber can set where the water enteres the toilet. So, that's our ultimate plan: we will find a plumber to place the trap and reseat our toilet. 

In the meantime, we placed a piece of plexiglass and a 5 lb weight on top to be able to see anything when we need to and keep those critters out of room. I hope I never witness one because I fear I will not have the courage to kill it before flushing it....

Ranked voting sounded really weird to me at first, like there was some kind of catch, but the more I learn, the more I think that it can add to data-driven understanding of the real preferences of voters in any certain area, be it very local like a city election all the way up to a national election.

For example, Spring 2024, we saw a county commissioners race where none of the 3 runners secured 50% of the vote. That is the type of race that ranked voting is designed to improve.

Ranked voting will never change an election where a single candidate gets 50% or more of the votes cast. However, in a case like this recent commissioners election, allowing voters to cast a 2nd or 3rd choice if they *wanted* to could have moved a candidate into the leading position.

For the curious: https://oregon-voting.org/

And I quote: "In our current system, a candidate can win an election with only 30% or 40% of the vote.

That means that a majority of voters didn’t vote for that candidate...Voters are increasingly becoming disillusioned with politics, and our current election system plays an essential role in voter apathy.

Oftentimes, the candidates that have the most access to financial resources win elections, even if they are not broadly representative of most people’s views.

In turn, voters are left feeling like they have to vote for the candidate who has the best chance of winning rather than the candidate they truly resonate with.

Voters' choices are limited, and candidates are choosing not to run for office because they worry about taking votes away from a like-minded or similar candidate...

Ranked choice voting would help address these problems..."

As I would imagine is the case with most of us, from books and what I'd read on scandals of elected officials over the years, I believed that when you see elected officials at parties, they are schmoozing at the cost of the tax payer.  You know, like all the Batman movies portray. People can certainly do that, often appear doing that, at least.

As a non-drinker, though, I tend to view any occasion with alcohol a "party" and can't imagine that a party can aide in anything that progresses, protects or otherwise furthers good things for us average people. So, imagine my surprise learning that something else is at work.

These events connect decision makers from all the various layers of how our society operates.  Whether I or my fellow teetotalers appreciate this environment, connecting people together is an incredibly powerful way to work together. So, much as I hate to admit it, these partees, soirees, award dinners, yata yata yata, do connect these organizations and can work for the people, the common good. 

Elected officials connected to the business community, the charities, and other organizations where parties and dinners are how they collect donations, get efforts funded by participating in these other "ways of doing business".

Biggest case in point for us out here: we will need all of our layers of society: the city/county/state, our Chamber of Commerces, churches, businesses, and all manner of non-profit, non-government agencies to work together to build a reasonable Camping Ordinance to handle the homelessness crisis in our area which is worsened because we have livable weather all year round and  a lack of affordable housing -- including for working and middle class people -- around the country make the Oregon Coast a destination point.

If the leaders of all these groups, including elected officials -- yikes, that's me this time around, too! -- do not have any connection, we will fail.

Legal and ethical behavior is optional when you are a boss or investor or business owner, etc. But when you are elected, it's actually required for us to stay in our appropriate lanes. Any volunteer program is council policy, so by allowing councilors to volunteer in the program creates an immediate conflict of interest as councilors are not permitted to direct staff. Donations, the same. If your name is attacted to it, you can exert undue influence.

When city staff are directing the governing body, our charter -- and most municipal charters -- expressly prohibit the head of that body from controlling the council. Moreover, insurance companies won't cover claims when an elected official acts outside the role as an elected official, or for acts when not *duly assembled* as a governing body.

Duly assembled is quite specific: quorums needed for all decisions, and any meeting has a public notification period -- so it must be planned, advertised, then executed as a group. So individual interactions from an elected official with any part of the body they govern are very restricted.

This is an excellent way to distribute power so that elected people can't exert too much, but it is also confusing and much more complicated to get things executed than, say, getting the boss to agree to your great idea and having it start right away...

After getting sworn in, I had to go through a bunch of paperwork very much like when I started a new job. I got my first "paycheck" which included 2 council meetings during December, 2022: the work session and the council session the following day.

The $25/meeting I receive includes deductions for taxes and FICA (Social Security, Medicare, etc.). That per meeting is regardless of how long the meeting is and does not include activities like the day-long training session I attended to learn about effective councils and how they work together put on by the League of Oregon Cities. 

My net pay for my 2 meetings of $50 total was $46.10.

As an elected official you have to give some pretty personal details about where you are getting your money from. This called filing an SEI or Statement of Economic Interest. 

 Oregon's process has a window from March 15 - April 15 that you need to file and they attempt to send out reminders, but it's up to you to keep your contact information up to date.

This is also the way that others can examine what their elected officials did with that money. 

While I love transparency, often times biased media sources -- corporate ownership can do that -- mean that images, quotes and other facts are used with inaccurate *assessments* of what that data means.  Still, I think this an important requirement for our elected officials. And I hope that our laws go deeper into things like:

• major donors of all lobbying entities are always revealed

• where the money comes from are noted

Wouldn't it be amazing if Facebook were required to, say, display the currency that an ad were purchased in or if organizations had a bar chart that showed the  gap between their largest doners and their average donors. These kinds of indicators could speak to us as information consumers when organization really only have a single voice guiding their actions...